wilsonnb

This comment thread [1] is a pretty good indication of why I don't think Jordan Peterson is worth listening to. He has no interest in answering the question he's being asked and instead throws out a single study to defend his position on something. Exactly what I would expect from a random person on the internet. Not what people should expect from someone they consider to be an intellectual.

Self-help author or bullshit artist would be a better description, depending on how strongly you feel about it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan...

> Do you think it's somehow bad for a car manufacturer to not want to go through the hassle of making their cars conform to the safety standards?

Ah yes, the old "all regulations are equal" argument. It should come as no surprise to you that people view safety regulations on automobiles as vastly different than regulations on what a company can do with data about you.

You don't run Android Studio on your phone. Being able to run Android Studio isn't the definition of a general purpose computer.

Being able to develop software for a device on that device also isn't the definition of a general purpose computer.

A general purpose computer is one that can be easily made to run different programs. Again, it's a differentiation between devices like microwaves and ovens that are technically computers, but aren't used like computers by the general public.

The problem I have is that you are conflating potential damage and actual damage as the same thing, which is not how you accurately measure risk.

I am honestly confused as to how you interpreted my last comment as "utterly cavalier about the prospect of ruining people's lives", when all I said was that your assumption doesn't take into account the actual probability of data being leaked and it doesn't weigh any of the benefits of data collection against that risk.

Are you talking about a "dumb" phone? That I would agree is a special purpose computer.

A smartphone is definitely a general purpose computer, though. The definition of a general purpose computer isn't "a computer that can do anything a typical PC can".

A proper definition would be something like "Any computer-based device that accepts different applications". It's a differentiator between things like microwaves, which are technically computers, and smartphones/laptops/PCs/tablets.

I have a hard time seeing any justification for your view. Why would you own data about yourself? Do you own your name? Do you own the fact that you went to taco bell for dinner last night? Can you sue someone else for knowing you went to taco bell last night? Should it be a crime for someone who knows your name to tell someone else your name? What if they do it for money?

"Owning" data about yourself is a very strange concept to me.

A phone is a general purpose computer, and most people pay more than $300 for their laptop or desktop anyways.

The essential phone didn't have a headphone jack either.

All of the big companies know that most people aren't willing to base their purchase on whether or not a phone has a headphone jack, and therefore they don't have much to lose from ditching it. They can use that space for more battery or for whatever else they want to put there. The inside of a modern smartphone is a pretty space constrained place.

Buying 6 dongles would also only cost $54 ($9 each) which isn't a ridiculous price for an accessory in my opinion, especially if you're buying a high end phone that's going to cost you $700+ anyways.

Personally, I just carry one dongle attached to my keychain and keep one in the car. It hasn't been an issue for me yet.

You forgot "target emerging markets", which is an important reason that Xiaomi and Huawei have been successful.

Nexus phones also weren't really successful and weren't intended to be. They were intended to be development devices and for Google to show the direction that they wanted Android to go in. They also didn't build any of them in-house, they were made by HTC, Samsung, LG, Motorola, Huawei, and Asus.

Google's real entry into the smartphone market was with the Pixel which was a direct competitor to the iPhone.

That seems like an extreme perspective. Kind of like the tech version of abstinence only sex ed. Sure, it's the only 100% safe way, but it's not useful for most people. It doesn't weigh the benefits against the potential cons, or even take into consideration the actually likelihood of data being leaked.

The whole point is that they were not comparing anything to clean water or cheap food. They were comparing something to water that doesn't need to be moved inside manually and bread that doesn't have to be made at home.

Neither of which is needed to live. Both of which are conveniences.

So you're saying that all data that has made it to the cloud will eventually leak? That seems like a strange assumption to me.

The problem with this logic is that it applies to phones, tablets, and laptops as well.

There isn't much additional risk from having an Echo or a Google Home if you already keep a smartphone within 10 feet of you at all times, which most of the people who are buying these devices do.

Where have you read that Amazon and Google send a ton of data back? I've heard that none of these devices send anything back until they're activated by a specific phrase.

Without data to back it up, your reasonable confidence doesn't help me much.

I'm pretty sure you can buy IBM's newest mainframe, the z14, with 32TB of memory. I don't think that mainframes are that popular in trendy "big data" though.

Your first source states in the headline that the drone strikes "kill innocents 90% of the time".

Then, in the body, it says the drone strikes "caused the deaths of unintended targets nearly nine out of ten times".

An unintended target is not the same as an innocent, and it's misleading to use them interchangeably.

Your second source is better, but you haven't provided any data on the civilian-to-target ratio of more conventional methods. You can't have a meaningful comparison without that.

First of all, people haven't even come to a consensus on when war itself is ethically justified. It shouldn't surprise anyone that drone warfare, a subset of something we can't come to an ethical consensus on, is a highly debated ethical issue.

It's very easy to justify our drone program from a utilitarian perspective. All you have to do is show that it has a lower civilian to target ratio than more conventional forms of warfare. It's even easier if you count the lives of US soldiers as more important than civilians in war zones, and a lot of people agree with that.

I haven't read it yet, but I look forward to reading this 22 page paper [1] on the ethics of drone warfare. I read the abstract and the conclusion, which states that "much more nuanced and probing analysis of the moral dimension of remotely piloted aircraft operations is needed". Perhaps you will enjoy reading it as well.

edit: You've added some rather inflammatory language about killing children and civilians since I last saw your comment, so I thought I'd add this - it's pretty easy for anyone who's studied ethics to come up with situations in which killing hundreds of children can be justified with a common ethical framework. Ethics is not at all a black and white subject.

You're just trying to appeal to people's emotions instead of making an actual ethical argument.

They shouldn't be testing on public roads and highways then.

It's already illegal in many states in the US. Possibly at the local level as well.

Here's the relevant law for Virginia.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter9/secti...

It's a class 6 felony, which in VA means you'll be looking at "a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both".

Corporations do operate primarily based on profits (not entirely, but mostly).

You seem to be ignoring the fact that "profits" doesn't just mean how much money they can get today. It also means how much money they can get tomorrow, the next day, the next decade, the next century.

Things like consumer trust and confidence in the brand are extremely important to a company's long term profits. Yes, corporations are amoral, but you're not painting a very accurate picture when you compare them to psychopaths.

It's also not a generally accepted conclusion that the American drone program is unethical so I wouldn't use that as evidence of Google being unethical.

Run for local government, or state government. Some millennials are old enough to run for a seat in the House. Depending on when you define the first birth year for millennials, some might be old enough to run for the Senate.

Work for a lobbying group. Work for a non-profit. Volunteer for an organization that encourages people to vote. Protest. Donate.

There are plenty of things that people can do regardless of their age.

I wouldn't throw the New York Times and the Washington Post in the same bucket as the Huffington Post and Slate without some good evidence backing it up. It reinforces the idea that all news sources are roughly the same which is not true.

WaPo and NYT are national newspapers founded in the 1800's who compete with the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, the LA Times, Reuters, etc.

HuffPo and Slate are news websites launched in the 90's or 2000's that are competing with sites like Breitbart, Salon, the Daily Beast, etc.

I agree that we should call out this kind of article, but I don't like spreading the conception that click-bait based news websites are equally as reliable as more trustworthy sources.

The substance is that I actually use a security feature that Apple has implemented and it makes my device more secure. That's my justification for saying that Apple cares about security. If it was security theater, then the feature they implement would be for show and not actually make me more secure. I don't believe that's the case. Feel free to prove me wrong. That would count as substance.

The burden is then on you to give a reason that you think that wiping my device after 10 failed pin/password attempts is security theater and not just security.

Apparently your reasoning is just that "Apple is a corporation and corporations use security theater", which is a terrible argument. It assumes that all corporations do certain things without room for exceptions. It also has nothing to do with the actions themselves.

> definition of security theater is taking actions that make it look like you care about security.

If the actions you take to make it look like you care about security also happen to make you more secure, is it security theater? Can a company do something that both makes them look good in the public eye and be good for their users? I think they can.

Perhaps you could explain why you think those things are security theater. Then your comment would have some actual substance.

Your assumption that nobody at Apple cares about the customer's privacy and security is completely ridiculous.

The fact that they have a setting to wipe your device after 10 failed pin/password attempts proves that they care about my security and privacy. There's no other reason to include such a feature.

Not to mention the secure enclave in iOS devices (and the MacBook Pro and iMac Pro, I think) or Apple's refusal of FBI requests to assist in unlocking iPhones.

I also use do not disturb mode all the time, so that only texts and calls from my family get through.

The Android P beta has changed the way do not disturb works by default, though. Now it doesn't show the notifications at all. Previously, on Oreo, my phone wouldn't vibrate or ring but I could still swipe down from the top and see my notifications.

Now, on P, nothing shows up in the notification tray until you turn do not disturb off, and then you will get a million notifications all at once.

Personally, I like the old model better. I missed a few text messages because I didn't know they weren't being shown anymore. I like being able to glance at the notifications when I want without having to toggle do not disturb off.

Luckily, you can switch back to the old behavior by going to Sound -> DO Not Disturb -> Block Visual Disturbances -> Hide from notification list.

Pretty much the same books that are beneficial for non-programmers to read.

Assuming people are actually auditing the open source firmware.